At 12.02 25/02/2004, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>I hate to be a constant curmudgeon, but if these formal statements and
>declarations keep proliferating that simply equate Open Access with
>Open Access Journal Publication, and keep misrepresenting Open Access
>Archiving as being merely the means of storing and accessing Open Access
>Journal Articles, the great loser, both in numbers and time, will be
>Open Access itself, and researchers will continue to sacrifice
>vast amounts of their research usage and impact needlessly.
Dear Stevan,
even though I think you are absolutely right, there is a pragmatical
aspect that could be taken into some consideration. During these
long silent months (from IFLA's side), I contemplated three scenarios:
a) IFLA could have taken a much weaker position in favour of OA;
b) IFLA could have taken no position at all;
c) IFLA could even have taken a position against OA.
Not all librarians are convinced yet that OA is the right way to go.
This reason is among those that induce me to rather welcome this
declaration.
At my institution we are supporting both roads to OA, and of
course we mostly encourage the "green" strategy. Nonetheless,
the "gold" one seems to be more appealing. We may discuss
the reasons for days and years, but it would not change it.
OA publishing may take longer, but it is probably also more
likely to CREATE a deeper cultural CHANGE in the long run.
I have a dream: peace among those who are on the same side
of the barricade!
Best regards, Susanna Mornati
Dr. Susanna Mornati
Project Leader AEPIC
(Academic E-Publishing Infrastructures)
CILEA - Inter-Academic Consortium for ICT
Via R. Sanzio 4, I-20090 SEGRATE (MILANO) - ITALY
mobile +39 348 7090 226, office +39 02 2699 5322
mailto:mornati_at_cilea.it
http://www.aepic.it/
Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 09:38:43 GMT